K.SETHURAMAN-/ vs JUNIOR ENGINEER, T.N.E.B.

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 10th day of June, 1998 in O.P. No. 333/1995 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai.

THE appellant is the complainant while the respondents are the opposite parties. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

The complainant, it appears, put up a superstructure on canal poramboke land belonging to the P.W.D. He would claim that he had been in enjoyment and possession since 1957. A service connection in S.C. No. 177, it appears, had been obtained to the said premises located at Othakadai. The said service connection, it appears, was disconnected on 18.12.1988 without any sort of a prior notice. The complainant would claim that the act of the opposite parties in effecting the disconnection of the service connection without prior notice would tantamount to deficiency in service on their part.

IN such a backdrop and setting, he knocked at the doors of the Forum below for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite parties in pith and substance would contend that the premises in question was put up at a poramboke land. The service connection had been obtained on some sort of a false pretext on an earlier occasion. No no objection certificate from the Competent Authority had been produced. The disconnection of the service connection in such circumstances is just and proper. There is no deficiency in service on their part. Even otherwise the complaint as filed is not maintainable inasmuch as the complaint had been filed on 8.5.1995 after a period of 7 years since the date of the disconnection which event happened on 18.12.1988. The complaint as such is liable to be dismissed.

THE Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently dismissed the complaint without costs. Aggrieved by the order as above, the complainant resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of his choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. M.V. Venkataseshan and A. Thiagarajan. On service of process, the respondents/opposite parties also entered appearance through a Counsel of their choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. I.S. Inbadurai.

WHEN this matter came up for hearing before us today, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/complainant were called absent and no representation was made on their behalf. We are, however, inclined to dispose of the appeal on merits, of course, after hearing the argument of learned Counsel Mr. I.S. Inbadurai appearing for the respondents/opposite parties.

EVEN at the outset we may point out that there is absolutely no merits in this appeal. No material worth the name had been placed on record by the complainant to point out that he is the owner of the premises in question. The materials placed on record point out that he had put up a superstructure in the canal poramboke land belonging to the P.W.D. No Objection Certificate had ever been obtained by the complainant from the Competent Authority for getting the service connection. 28.00 of the Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board lays down the parameters under which the electricity connection, if given earlier, can be disconnected, 28.01 of the said terms and conditions prescribes that the electricity connection is capable of being disconnected if the consumer had violated the terms and conditions of electricity supply. 6.04 of the terms and conditions of electricity supply prescribes that if supply to any type of service connection in any other Government/poramboke land is applied for, the intending consumer should produce a No Objection Certificate from an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of a Tahsildar and also execute an indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Board (vide Appendix II). In the case on hand, the consumer/complainant did not produce any No Objection Certificate from an officer of the Revenue Department not below the rank of Tahsildar and further he had not executed the indemnity bond in the form prescribed by the Board. In such a situation, the disconnection of the service connection of the complainant by the opposite parties cannot at all be stated to tantamount to deficiency in service on their part. This apart, the complaint had been filed after a long delay of 7 years. Admittedly, the service connection had been disconnected on 18.12.1988 and the complaint had been filed on 8.5.1995, that is to say, after a delay of 7 years. The complaint, even if it is otherwise tenable, is barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, ''the Act, 1986'']. In fine, the Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed. c